Is should a weaker must

Bibliographic Data

ID10139406
AuthorsClaude Rivière (Université Paris Cité, corresponding author)
Year1981
Volume17
Issue2
Pages179-195
Publication date1981-09-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Linguistics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-2267 • E-ISSN: 1469-7742
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0022226700006940
OpenAlexW2121200647
LanguageEN
Citations received9

The modal auxiliary should , when it is used to express ‘probability’, is generally considered as a weaker equivalent of must (see for instance Leech & Svartvik, 1975: 131 and Hornby, 1962: 223). Although this informal assumption contains a fair degree of truth, this paper will show first, that it requires qualification and secondly, that it gains strength once it has been qualified. In other words, there is more truth in the assumption than is suspected by its casual users. The method I will use is to consider the compatibilities between must and should and their environment. Though the relevant kind of environment cannot be defined in a purely syntactic way, it can be accurately specified in simple semantic terms, many of which have syntactic correlates. Verbal contexts are generally available but situational contexts will occasionally have to be used. It will then appear that the diversity of situational contexts can be reduced to very few elementary relations

Casual · Cognitive psychology · Degree (music · Diversity (politics · Epistemology · Linguistics · Modal · Political science · Semantic property · Simple (philosophy · Situational ethics · Sociology · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Law · Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Psychology · Social Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub